« I like the idea that love is akin to spaciousness | Main | Cults can be political as well as religious »

January 25, 2025

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

https://gwern.net/doc/statistics/bias/1989-diaconis.pdf

Nevertheless, Brian declares that someone raising their arm can't simply be a gesture to signify thanks and gratitude, but is proof positive evidence it's that person's personal declaration that they're a Nazi. If that someone is Elon Musk that is.

I look forward to your next essay about how to be clear-sighted and unbiased.

Yeah YN, making TWO clear Nazi salutes (like somebody who had no friends as a kid and is still desperately trying to fit in as a grown man, I might add) at a political victory rally by the overtly racist, afd nazi party supporter was PURE coincidence dude! No doubt!

Hey, I haven't taken anywhere near as much ketamine as your man Musk there bro, but I've had a fair few experiences.

That shit is cray cray. And trust me, I know my cray cray drugs.

Aww… you’re just taking all the fun and magic out of everything.

Clearly, you’re not a Pisces.

From my very, very brief scan of Brian's post he appears to be stating David Lane's favourite Littlewood's Law theory, or as I call it the unscientific, unfalsifiable, post hoc ergo proctor hoc theory.

Real mystics, those not swayed, impressed or attracted by "miracles" (a very, very small group of folks, imo) know that "miracles" don't come as 1 of 1 million, they come in their hundreds, their thousands, often multiple individual "miracles" all miraculously tied to each other in 1 event, all day and every day, whilst the mystic, in silence (not on blogs, in books or in satsangs....in SILENCE) looks at them from the corner of their eye, disinterestedly, unimpressed and with a chuckle.

Ime anyway. YMMV.

Coincidences and miracles and our interpretations of such all come down to our particularly programmed thoughts, emotions and beliefs, sometimes what science terms ‘Affective Realism’. We all like things that support our beliefs, and usually dislike things that violate those beliefs, hence we might prefer miracles to coincidence. So, we all have our own interpretations on people, their actions and events.

Our varied comments throughout Brian’s blogs show our particular biases.

I have been reading what L.F. Barrett says on the subject. She warns that “affective realism, when left unchecked, leads people to be dead certain and inflexible. However, we can protect against misattribution of affect by under-standing its presence. When possible, we should catch judgements and perceptions that wrongfully project inner-states on innocent’s objects. This may require suspending judgement until a difficult mood has past, or until we collect more data.”

I understand that a life long practice of Zazen by Usiyama Roshi made him accept his humanness, his weakness to live up to the lofty standards the Buddha dharma.

Interesting reading. The article, as well as both the linked articles. Not really new, but still, enjoyed reading both, very much, as well as rehashing the math. (Although school level math, but it's been a while, so yes, it did need rehashing, thinking through!)

There's the psychology of it as well. I pick some "lucky" numbers, or pray maybe, and win the lottery, and am overjoyed with the miracle. And do not think of it as coincidence, and, importantly, forget the many times when I've done the same but not won, and the zillions of times others have done the same and not won. That's a textbook logical fallacy. (It has a formal name, that fallacy, but I can't remember it just now! But it's informally sometimes referred to as the lottery fallacy. Aka the God-or-Consciousness-created-the-universe-because-look-at-how-tiny-a-sliver-is-the-Goldilocks-probability-zone fallacy that is easily debunked easily enough by falling back on some variation of the anthropic principle.)

----------

Heh, talking about probability: What are the odds that this place, that is meant for a rational reasonable exploration of spirituality, will have ended up becoming the crapping ground of a bunch of morons and delusions and shameless dishonest-to-the-core liars, who seem to delight in coming here to excrete out their mindless halfwittery? Is that merely chance, a matter of simple mathematics, or is it retribution miraculously wreaked by a certain unshaven "bent Baba", as he is sometimes referred to in comments here, for hosting posts and comments critical of him?

"Affective Realism"


Hadn't heard that term before. Looked it up, enough references easily available online via a quick google. Thanks for bringing that up!

Sant64, like Trump, you have an annoying habit of saying things that obviously aren't true. I've never said anything about Elon Musk's "salute," which as you noted bears a close resemblance to a Nazi gesture. I haven't commented about this on this blog, on my other blogs, in other writing, or even in conversation with anybody. The issue just doesn't interest me. You're a good example of how the mind can be fooled into believing things that aren't true out of an excess of religious or political passion/fanaticism.

Appreciative Reader: "the crapping ground of a bunch of morons and delusions and shameless dishonest-to-the-core liars, who seem to delight in coming here to excrete out their mindless halfwittery?"

Brian: "You're a good example of how the mind can be fooled into believing things that aren't true out of an excess of religious or political passion/fanaticism."

Pot, let me introduce you to kettle. Here's a subject for you to discuss: ⬛.

Anyway, here's the daily non existent quote of the day you've all been waiting for!:

"What we need is more people who've never experienced "miracles" or synchronicities of any significance, let alone synchronicity cluster-fucks, to discuss their insights into these experiences.
What we need is more people who've never experienced any significant telepathic, precognitive or other "psi" related phenomena to share their insights into these experiences.
What we need is more people who've never had any significant "mystical" experiences, let alone are thoroughly and intimately familiar with them, to tshare their insights into these experiences.
What we need is more completely blind people to to share their insights into visual art"

As quoted by no-one, ever.

In the above thread we have at least 1 commenter, AR, who through the prism of an absence of personal experience with the phenomena being discussed and a mental, conceptual belief in the objectively unproven and imo obviously inaccurate, reductionist materialist ideology, frames "miracles" as these 1 in a million events guaranteed events by the law of large numbers probabilities. And those that believe their experiences are more layered, multi faceted/aspected, with a cluster of these seemingly 1 in a million events COMPOUNDED MULTIPLE times to provide an experience with a coherent and meaningful narrative to the experiencer, are just simplistic, naive, gullible fools who do not understand the law of large numbers. As they have not had these experiences, which cannot be reduced to these 1 in a million odds, they strawman uninteresting, simplistic experiences and naive, gullible believers. Of course, these exist in abundance too.

Here's your daily insight of the day from somebody who's actually well experienced in the subject being discussed, instead of from an oppositional, experientially ignorant, ideological perspective:

"Surfing the waves of synchronicity CLUSTER-FUCKS is akin to mastering lucid dreaming.
Most folks get so excited if they manage to achieve FULL lucidity within a dream (which appears to in itself be quite rare, judging from the lack of astral experience of RS satsangis who've apparently been meditating for 3 hours a day for decades with near nothing except the odd bit of fleeting hypnagogic imagery to show for it.....WOW, insane. Get a better hobby! This is a game of experience, not theory!) that they immediately wake up!
The trick is to, deep down, remain calm and detached from what is being observed, however exciting or exhilarating, or terrifying and scary, it may seem.
Likewise with synchronicities; they start off small. Perhaps even like the 1 in a million law of numbers type events being propped up as the totality of this phenomena by materialists. But if you're GENUINELY disinterested by this WORLDLY phenomena, GENUINELY not so excited that you must instantly write a blog post or generate an AI podcast about (;-) it, and are instead more focused on more transcendent issues......then the synchronicities can deepen, compound, complex, cluster to absolute absurd levels that leave NO DOUBT as to the mystery or reality, consciousness, the universe, and how it's all connected."

This quote was brought to you by Sri Manjit Ji.

Please like and subscribe.

Where?

I don't know and don't care. Perhaps hit Brian up on his Insta.

:)

Suppose you define “miracles” within a dataset of online transactions for a large bank:

Define the event space: Every online transaction during a calendar year (say 500 million transactions).
Define the “miracle”: Some very specific pattern (like “five distinct fraudulent markers coinciding in a single transaction”) that, under a probabilistic risk model, is calculated to happen with probability 1 in 100 million.
Collect data: Systematically record every single transaction and check how often that exact pattern occurs over the year.
Compare: If the model says “expect 5 such rare events,” see whether the actual data is close to that number. If it is, it supports the claim that, given enough transactions, “miracles” (extremely rare outcomes) do indeed show up about as often as predicted.
Key Takeaways
Littlewood’s Law is more a philosophical or heuristic statement highlighting that “rare” does not necessarily mean “impossible” once the number of trials gets large.
To test it scientifically, you must do careful, large-scale empirical work with explicit definitions and controls for bias.
Typically, what you find in real data is that many “impossible” events do happen—just about as often as probability theory would lead you to expect, once the volume of trials or observations is huge.


The birthday paradox refers to the counterintuitive probability that in a group of just 23 people, there's about a 50% chance that two of them share the same birthday. This happens because, rather than comparing each person's birthday to a fixed date, you're comparing every person’s birthday to everyone else’s.

The math behind it involves calculating the probability of no shared birthdays (assuming 365 days in a year) and subtracting it from 1. With 23 people, there are 253 possible pairwise comparisons, making it surprisingly likely for a match despite the seemingly small group size.

The birthday paradox is an interesting, if by now clichéd, example of the counter intuitive nature of probabilities and chance, and the human propensity to hyperinflation of ego-centric narrative and meaning making.

As an obsessed student of the mystical and paranormal, I have made intensive studies into psychology, chance, mathematics, probability, paranormal experiences, mentalism and stage magic. I have heard of the birthday paradox countless times.

I mention stage magic and mentalism because as a student of the occult and mystical, I needed to fully understand how a Darren Brown, for example, does every single one of his "tricks". And I did that. These examples of chance which are counter intuitive are bread and butter for stage magicians and mentalists. Entire routines are based off these human blind spots.

And, funnily enough, I think Darren Brown mentions the birthday paradox in his first book Tricks of the Mind!

But to associate these relatively minor forms of experience with the full range of experiences that do occur is naive. It's a materialist Straw man argument which is unscientific because it's unfalsifiable and also an example of the post hoc ergo proctor hoc logical error.

Statistically, psi or paranormal phenomena have already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is ideological dogma which prevents this from being accepted:

https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references

It isn't either when it comes to probabilities, but there is no reason to leap to the paranormal when it is important to ground what you can first in quantifiable.

Here is a start, and, btw, the very non-intuitiveness of the birthday paradox shows that if we have a large enough number set it will appear impossible, but it is not.

As for testing it is does all the time in statistics.

Here is a start,
Choice of Null Model Is Crucial

The significance you assign to a coincidence heavily depends on how you model the underlying distribution of your parameters. If your null model is too simplistic or too broad, you might overestimate the rarity of the coincidence.
The Role of Theory

Statistical significance tests can reveal improbability but do not alone establish causality or deeper physical law. A strong theoretical framework can guide why certain coincidences are worth testing and how to interpret the outcomes.
Iterative Process

As with any scientific inquiry, the process is iterative:
Observe a potential coincidence.
Formulate hypotheses and statistical tests.
Collect or generate new data (or run simulations) to test those hypotheses.
Refine models and interpretations based on the results.
By following these steps—defining a precise null hypothesis, constructing a relevant test statistic, using Monte Carlo or analytical methods to estimate probabilities, and interpreting results within the context of theory and multiple comparisons—you can rigorously assess whether a large number coincidence is statistically noteworthy or consistent with chance.

Not surprisingly, manjit, not any more: not surprisingly, you choose to gloss over the unassailable “evisceration” --- to use a word you’re fond of throwing around, except correctly this time --- of your halfwitted political position, as well as your imbecile “spiritual” beliefs (including in respect of your demonstrably and demonstratedly fallacious ideas in the recent Oneness discussion); but leap to crap on, completely insubstantially, with this insubstantiality. Yeah, paint me completely unsurprised.

We could have together explored all of this substantially, you and I. For the longest time I imagined one might, with you, even when the emptiness of many others’ claims here became clear to me. But in recent weeks and months, you’ve shown yourself to be incapable of self-examination, and, yes, stupid even. And, most importantly, you’ve shown yourself to be completely lacking in intellectual integrity, and disingenuous, and in one respect at least actually dishonest, in every sense of that word.

In light of which, your extravagant claims, that I earlier took seriously, I no longer do. While it is not possible to directly judge another’s subjectivity, but certainly one might do that indirectly. And there’s no reason to imagine that someone that lacks integrity and honesty in other, more mundane matters, should be possessed of such when making these far more extravagant claims.

I reject those claims, manjit. I call you out as a delusional and a liar. That is the simplest explanation of your conduct here throughout, and the only one that actually explains your disgraceful comments in recent weeks and months. You’re a liar that’s either concocted your “experiences” out of whole cloth, or else you’ve embellished such experiences that you’ve actually had beyond recognition, in order to puff yourself up in these online forums that you apparently get off of haunting. …And you’re a delusional --- you’re demonstrably and demonstratedly a delusional --- that completely misunderstands the import and the implications of such experiences, and how that figures in shaping a worldview that might reasonably encompass such.

You and your absurd posturing. It stands revealed as completely empty.

For every spectrum there are two poles.

We have some folks who think every minor coincidence is a sign, miracle or confirmation of some supernatural belief. They remain immune or even adamantly opposed to even exploring alternative, more down to earth "mundane", "rationalist" explanations.

Then we have some folks who insist there is no such thing as "Miracles" or paranormal, psi type phenomenona because their ideological beliefs deny they are possible. They remain immune to exploring more deeply the phenomena from even neutral let alone positive sources, and ignore the OVERWHELMING scientific and statistical evidence for the reality of this phenomena, preferring instead to put up an anaemic Straw man caricature of the phenomena. These folks INSIST on the meaningless, mindlessness and utter randomness and chaos of reality, the universe and consciousness.

Let us not forget that apophenia or pareidolia isn't the only psychological condition that can affect humans, there is also randomania and apatternicity which is to deny patterns when they clearly do exist.

I suggest the Buddha would say wisdom lies somewhere between the two.

AR - I got to evisceration of my half witted political position.

This was objectively bizarre, absurd and delusional enough for me to switch off from the rest of your post which continues in the same vein of dire delusion.

Go read up on Freud, transference and projection and stop wasting my time with your inanities.

"AR - I got to evisceration of my half witted political position."


Haha, no, you demonstrably and demonstratedly did not. Not really. Not when it was substantially pointed out to you, repeatedly enough and pointedly enough that there's no question of believing you if you try to lie about not having seen them. And if you choose to ignore substantial examination of your position, not now but even back when we'd been on perfectly agreeable terms, then that again speaks to you and you alone.

And what is "bizarre", as in bizarrely ironic, is delusion-boy calling others delusional, that point out his delusions. And I have indeed pointed them out substantially, completely substantially, enough times in the past. Including most recently, and repeatedly enough and pointedly enough that you cannot pretend you missed it, in the Oneness discussion some days back.

You're not quite a Jim, not even close: but in kind even if not quite in degree, you're just the same.


...But, heck, manjit, Peace!

I've nothing against you personally. Nor the likes of Jim either, for that matter. It's just that, for the longest time, I took you completely seriously. Now that I no longer do, there's no reason why I shouldn't do for you what I do for them/him, which is to say leave you unmolested to parade around your halfwittery here. Not my business, really, is it? I'll leave you be, unless of course you directly comment on either me or something I've said, in which case fair game. Otherwise, you need not worry about being challenged here, not by me at any rate.

And nor does that mean blanket dismissal of everything you say. That would be textbook ad hom. I'll no longer bother with your comments, but if something does catch my eye, then I'll give it my unbiased attention. And, indeed, take it up with you as well if that is warranted (if you would take me up on it, that is to say, which is your call). ...But firmly on the basis that I no longer see you remotely in the terms that I used to in times past.

On that basis and with that understanding, cheers and god bless.

Jesus AR, you are one delusional puppy aren't ya?;

Again, I'm just speed reading your junk, but to clarify; seldom have I participated in "debates" about subjects like our discussion about genocide Joe where the opponent was so utterly humiliated. Your entire argument was bizarre, completely lacking in any form of substance, utterly detached from any aspect of reality, completely incoherent and purely delusional. I very much mean this sincerely.

That's all well and good. But to characterise that as your evisceration of MY political position?

WOW. Absolutely no connection to reality whatsoever, and why it's impossible for me to take you seriously. I mean there's other reasons, but who has the time to discuss such inanities!

As for your silliness about oneness or spirituality or whatever. First realise you're penniless, utterly bankrupt. Then go and beg at the bank.

Don't demand, that's just further humiliation for you.

God bless indeed!

😘


*looks on aghast*


“Puppy”, eh?

And yes, “beg”, as well. And, by extension, beggar. Even though there was nothing here that might even remotely be construed as a request on my part, leave alone “begging”.


Haha, I remember, when first Jim’s posturing was clearly exposed on here, then he’d taken to calling me that, a puppy. An allusion probably to the fact that I’m much younger than he, and also the fact that I arrived here at Churchless way later than he. And he’d then taken to repeatedly referring to my participation here as “piddling”. Poor Jim had not the wits, nor the discernment, to realize that his calling me those names spoke entirely and wholly to him, and not at all to me.

And here’s manjit, doing the exact same thing. Now calling me a “puppy”, and a “beggar” as well. Again, clearly without the discernment, or indeed the wits, to realize that *his* doing that also speaks to him and him only, and not at all to me.

Now that *his* posturing is clearly and unassailably exposed, then here’s manjit, showing us his actual true colors. That same manjit, whom I’d made the mistake of imagining was a whole different category than our Jim.

Tragic, truly tragic.


----------


manjit, if there’s a shred of the decency that I’d imagined I’d seen in you, then do you see what exactly you are, now?

You’re just a Jim, is all. No different at all. I mean, sure, a way more polished version of him, absolutely, I’ll grant you that. And it is because of that outward polish that I took so much longer to catch on to you than I did Jim’s far more obvious posturing. But underneath that polish, you’re just another Jim, is all.

Hahaha, wow! This, *this*, is our manjit. Wow!


----------


ENOUGH CONTENT-FREE NONSENSE EXCHANGED. HERE’S SOME CONTENT, SOME SUBSTANCE. HERE’S ONE VERY RECENT INSTANCE OF WHERE YOUR HALFWITTERY AND YOUR DISINSGENUOUSNESS ARE SHOWN UP, CLEARLY, UNASSAILABLY. NOT BY CALLING NAMES LIKE A CHILD WOULD, BUT WITH SUBSTANCE.

Here, in this thread, is where Osho Robbins and I SUBSTANTIALLY discuss Oneness. And where, in the course of the discussion, it is shown up to be a fallacy. ACTUALLY SHOWN UP TO BE A FALLACY, NOT MERELY LABELED “FALLACY”. Actually DEMONSTRATED to be incoherent, not merely labelled “incoherent” as some kind of a schoolyard namecalling tactic, like you resort to. AND HERE IN THIS THREAD IS WHERE OSHO ROBBINS CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGES IT AS SUCH. (Link: https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2024/12/the-rssb-guru-appears-to-be-teaching-advaita.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e202e860df0657200b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e202e860df0657200b.)

And this is where the discussion is continued, in this subsequent thread: https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2025/01/im-not-impressed-with-notebooklm-or-weird-notions-of-oneness.html

AND THAT LATTER THREAD IS WHERE YOU, MANJIT, COME UP AT THE END, WITH A COMMENT ABOUT SOMETHING I HAVE SAID. (It follows on the rest of the entirety of the exchange between Osho Robbins and me in these two threads.)

AND THIS IS WHERE I ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE YOUR HALFWITTERY FOR WHAT IT IS. VERY BRIEFLY, BUT YET COMPLETELY UNASSAILABLY. Not just by calling it halfwittery, but by actually DEMONSTRATING it clearly.

AND THIS WHERE YOU EITHER LACK THE WITS TO UNDERSTAND, OR ELSE YOU DISINGENUOUSLY SLINK AWAY LIKE A COWARD, WITH YOUR TAIL BETWEEN YOUR LEGS. (No, don’t lie, don’t you dare lie that you haven’t seen it. You’re a liar, manjit, that lies repeatedly. You don’t get to do that here. No one will believe you, so pointedly and repeatedly I say this, and at a time when you were very much around, crapping all over this place.)


----------


Likewise the politics thing as well.

This one instance above will suffice to demonstrate your halfwittery and your disingenuousness. I’m not rooting around looking for a link to that other discussion. But there also, I’ve clearly shown ---- not just claimed, like you do, but actually SHOWN ---- that your political position is actually, literally incoherent.

Which you had not the balls to actually address substantially, but then too resorted to empty name-calling.

(That other link can also be rooted out, with some effort. But for now this one clear instance, above, will do.)


----------


I don’t usually do this, actually do the keyboard warrior thing. No, my time spent here is actually about discovering and understanding spirituality. But I’m taking the time to do this now, because your dishonesty needs to be clearly shown for what it is, manjit. So that sincere seekers of truth don’t get sidetracked into wasting their time with your lies and your posturing.

manjit, you’re a vile dishonest liar. One cannot directly know that, of course. But someone that is DEMONSTRABLY AND DEMONSTRATAEDLY disingenuous in more mundane matters, cannot possibly be taken on trust when they make extravagant claims like you do.

And it is easy enough to make claims. Oh, I’ve heard bells and conches, and have done since I was a child! Oh, I’ve experienced all there is to experience, and more! Oh, I’ve seen this, that and the other thing in my visions!

All it takes to make claims is to just make claims. Which is why the field of spirituality is infested with so many lowlifes and charlatans and liars like you, manjit.

Someone who’s actually seen all of that will be stricken dumb with humility. They will most emphatically not go around calling their honest sincere interlocutors “puppies” and “beggars”, and they will not grandiosely beat their chest over their visions like you do. Your very arrogance marks you out as a shameless liar that has not actually experienced any of these things at all.

And here’s the thing: Should someone actually experience all of that, and more, even so: Even that is only the *beginning*, even that is only the starting point, of discovery of a larger worldview. A worldview that, in order to be sane and reasonable, continues to be rational, but encompassing of those experiences. Those experiences do not somehow magically transcend reason and rationality, at least not in any sane scheme of things.

All of which can and does make for a fascinating discussion. That is indeed the kind of discussion we have here. But not with dishonest liars like you.

You and your patently dishonest claims, and your silly endless posturing, and your schoolyard namecalling. Mystic, indeed.

I'm wondering about the teleology of this church. Every church has a cause, a reason for being, a desired end. What's Church of the Churchless' teleology? What does it see as its purpose?

What precisely does Church of the Churchless want? Does it even know?

Spiritually (for lack of a better term) Church of the Churchless at least seems to advocate for an an Allen Wattsian Zen. But why? That is, what purpose does materialist book and app Zen serve? It makes the world....what exactly? What is one to do with this Zen, and for what purpose?

The same question could be asked about politics, the sister issue of this church. Church says it's depressed that we have a new president. But here again, we're left wondering just why this new president is causing political depression. What exactly is this president doing that has Church depressed? Church doesn't say. And that leads me to wonder just what Church, and his fellow progressives, were trying to achieve in the last administration. Except in the vaguest terms they never talk about it. So much emotion, so much money to get their person elected, and yet if you ask them why this person, you'd likely get a blank stare.

Well, not really. They have a teleology, and it's simple: Not big white guy who reminds them of Dad.

By a remarkable or not coincidence, that teleology strikes me as strikingly similar to what I suspect is their infatuation with book app Zen. Not an Indian guy with a turban.

The spirituality of politics is like the politics of spirituality. Some people want to see the world a tangibly better place, and some would rather see the world burn as long as they don't have to bow to anyone.

Mathematics is reflection of miracles. Not other way around.
One whose inner eye is open, these are mundane experiences.
Whole lot more remains to explored than Miracles

sant64. Just for information: - many start off in Zen with the usual mind-set of getting something. If they continue to study they may begin to realise that what they thought they wanted was nothing other than the reality of being here/now.

Being here/now is basically how things are before we obscure our perceptions with thoughts, ideas, opinions and beliefs. As that reality becomes evident then one can just get on with life without always overlaying it with thought created concepts - which are often the cause of suffering (in the sense of an agitated mind) and is basically what Zen is all about.

No further need to search for meaning or self-justification etc. But sadly, what gets in the way of being with 'just this' is that we give in to the desire for entertainment, for some sort of escape from what we feel is the ordinariness of everyday living.

And, the fun (or interest) of the Churchless blog, is that it often discusses issues of psychology and science which doesn't detract from the here/now but simply stimulates interest.

@ Santo Ji

What is the purpose of the crow?

What is the purpose of the human that gets lost in the jungle?

The jungle can take many forms, ...even artificial....like society, culture.

Humans distinguish themselves from animals in the capacity that they can RE-CREATE their original habitat almost everywhere.
Society and culture are created in the image of nature.

We have skunks in nature and in society. Those in society to stink, but they can appear in any form, well dressed, well spoken, well educated ..you name it ...but ..they do stink never the less. ..history tells us all about the different "creatures" that populate that artificial "natural" world ...its all in the Panchatantra, Aesopus, The divina comedia
etc. ..and ..in the history books of the world.

All worldviews are in essence a "way of life" ..wholeheartedly practiced they have meaning and value in that attitude, otherwise they are meaningless and lead to nothing

I have never found it better expressed than in the books of Castaneda .. if you have come to the end of the road, lost your personal history, what remains is "Implacability"
Or in Zen, as Zazen is useless, you as well can do it to perfection. In Sant mat it says that it should be practiced with love and devotion. In Christianity they speak of an "Calling"...what matters is HOW you do it ...even judges want to know the INTEND before they sentence

In fact it is useless to write these things down as everybody knows them

Or ..Whatever lives was, is granted life, it is up to that creature to spend that energy for free and in doing so reep its consequences ..that intent comes in many forms, qualities, names etc.

Writing these words I am reminded of a smiling and joking late MCS, unsolicited out of the blue addressing himself to me saying that it is always a good thing to be kind to your mother ..to the me, that had in those days a long lasting issue with his mother.

There and then a doorway was shown to me, although it took many , many years to understand it. ...we are FREE to give from what we received for free, to whatever and whomever we want

That said Santo Ji

We are certainly not born to be American, republican or Democrat.
Nor are we born to read whatever there can be read.
To study whatever there can be studied.
Not even to be a member of an family, by the name of parent, child etc
Or to be a friend to anybody or a foe
We are not born to kill and be killed for anything or anybody.

The very things that are developed by humans, to make life for ourselves "better" than it is given to us by nature, creates positive and negative effects and often the negative effects are far greater, and last longer that the positive.

Unfortunately it is difficult if not impossible to escape these simple facts of life. ..not even drinking coffee helps.


@um,,,in the big picture, we all have been invited to the Ball, and forced to dance to music chosen for us, that we might not only rebel against, instead of taking the current Dance lessons teaching us to use what we have to offered, as long as possible. This included Crows.

"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: 2a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; 3a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away; 7a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace" (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).

I have been through most of these insights, because I have lived long enough to verify the truths.

I no longer try to answer every question of either young people with out their own life experiences, of those too lazy to plant their own seed, and harvest their bounties.

I really think that Master Charan was sad, and led a boring life , once they caught him, and forced him to doing the Mission for us lazy people, who harvest his Books on instruction, rather than laboring in our own field gardens.

@ Isodopen

>>I really think that Master Charan was sad, and led a boring life , once they caught him, and forced him to doing the Mission for us lazy people, who harvest his Books on instruction, rather than laboring in our own field gardens.<<

THAT ...your opinion, or your value and meaning, you attributed to your experience with him.

Things, persons or if you like the late MCS
are what they are
seldom what they look like
let alone how they are seen
or
made seen.

I am sure you are not alone in that thought of yours on him.

Remember the words of Jamun to his well educated, well wishing friends that did their best to not make a mistake in life by chosing Laila as his bride.
He appreciated their concerns yet he said:

Friends you should see her through my eyes.

P.S.
I was not born to be Christian or have faith in any other religion.
Not that there is anything wrong with living a devout religious life.
In order to do so nobody needs to know anything about one.


Sunlight isn’t so phenomenal in light of mathematics. But which came first?

Try and remember that mathematics is simply a language.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.